JUDGMENT Chatterjee, J. - An application is made by the Plaintiff for review of my order of September 8, 1948. The prayer is that the suit be directed to be restored. On September 8, 1948, I dismissed the suit with costs. This suit was filed on March 15, 1941. Thereafter the Defendant entered appearance on April 21, 1941. The discovery was completed in the month of May, 1941. When I dismissed the suit I was under the impression that it was the default of the attorney and it was his laches which was really responsible for the delay in the hearing of the suit. I was under the impression that it was an ordinary suit and that the Plaintiff's attorney did not do his essential duty of sending requisition to the Registrar for entering it in the Prospective List. That is provided by Chapter X, r. 7 of Original Side Rules. That rule says, " The attorney for any party" may submit to the Registrar a requisition in writing... to have "a suit, other than a special suit, standing in the General List, " entered in its proper Prospective List, on the ground that it is "ready to be heard, and the Registrar, if satisfied that the suit "is ready to be heard, shall enter it in its proper Prospective List " and the attorney or party acting in person, by whom the requisition "was submitted, shall forthwith give notice to the Opposite Party " or parties of such transfer when the suit is transferred to the "Prospective List." 2. Now it is pointed out to me that the suit was a commercial suit and was marked as such and that it came up before Mr. Justice Lort-Williams on July 14, 1941, for directions under the special procedure indicated for commercial suits. Under r. 2D of Ch. XII on the expiry of two months from the filing of the last written statement, each commercial suit, unless it has been entered in the Prospective List, shall be set down on a list in Chambers for directions. Ordinarily, all commercial suits are placed on the list for directions and thereafter the parties abide by the order for discovery and inspection, and the Court officers also act according to the directions of the Court as to when the suit is to appear in the Prospective List or the Warning List. 3. Mr. Ordinarily, all commercial suits are placed on the list for directions and thereafter the parties abide by the order for discovery and inspection, and the Court officers also act according to the directions of the Court as to when the suit is to appear in the Prospective List or the Warning List. 3. Mr. R. Chaudhuri, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, contends that in the case of a commercial suit which was set down for directions under r. 2D of Ch. XII, there is no room for the invocation of r. 7 of Ch. X which makes it incumbent on the Plaintiff's attorney to submit a requisition to the Registrar for entering the suit in the Prospective List. Mr. Hamidur Rahman, learned Counsel for the Defendant contends that r. 7 applies to commercial suit. So far as the language of r. 7 goes, it is in very wide terms and it refers to the General List which under r. 1 also comprises commercial suits. In my view the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri is correct, and in the case of a commercial suit in which directions have been given under r. 2D of Ch. XII by a Commercial Judge that the suit shall be placed under Prospective List on a particular date, it is no longer necessary or incumbent on the Plaintiff's attorney to submit a requisition as prescribed by r. 7 of Ch. X. It is really default on the part of the office of the Court and the suit ought to have appeared in the Prospective List in the month of August, 1.941'. Of course the attorney, although not technically called upon to submit a requisition, ought to have gone to the Registrar and made a complaint. It seems nothing has been done; but the Court should proceed on the basis that the order in the language of the Commercial Judge had been observed and complied with. From the affidavits it is clear that the brief of correspondence and bundles of documents were prepared and the suit was actually ready for hearing in 1941. The suit is on a promissory note and in such a case I would follow the observations of Derbyshire, C.J., who pointed out that if the Plaintiff is ready to go to trial court forthwith, then he should be given a chance to do so. The suit is on a promissory note and in such a case I would follow the observations of Derbyshire, C.J., who pointed out that if the Plaintiff is ready to go to trial court forthwith, then he should be given a chance to do so. I set aside the order which I made on September 8, 1948, and I direct that the suit be placed forthwith in the Warning List and that no further application for adjournment will be entertained by this Court. The Plaintiff applicant must pay the costs of the Defendant both of September 8, 1948, and also of the present summons. Certified for Counsel.